(November 30, 2014 at 4:22 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(November 30, 2014 at 4:09 pm)Jenny A Wrote: By the way, there is broader problem with the complex universe argument. That is that it is only in a universe that encourages enough complexity to allow the development of conscious life that the question of complexity can be discussed. Thus if there are other possible universes, it is of no great improbability that we should be in one which allows complexity as we couldn't be in one that doesn't.

All you are doing here is positing the existence of a multiverse.

Not really. Even if ours is only one of many universes that might exist, then we could still only discuss the issue is ours allowed us to develop.

(November 30, 2014 at 4:22 pm)Heywood Wrote: I consider the possibility of a multiverse and the possibility of purposeful fine tuning. I lean toward one more than the other because in my experience realities cannot come into existence unless there is the involvement of an intellect.

No one has an experience of "realities" coming into existence. This is the only reality any of us has any experience with. And we haven't seen it come into existence. Novels, computer simulations, movies, etc are not really realities. Anyone playing a game is aware that any simulated reality is just a thought experiment played in this universe.

(November 30, 2014 at 4:28 pm)Jenny A Wrote: No one has an experience of "realities" coming into existence. This is the only reality any of us has any experience with. And we haven't seen it come into existence. Novels, computer simulations, movies, etc are not really realities. Anyone playing a game is aware that any simulated reality is just a thought experiment played in this universe.

Jenny I have two 30 second videos I would like you to watch. This first one is a video of a creature which evolved in our reality.





This second one is a video of a creature which evolved in a reality intellects created.(sorry....I thought I could figure out how to post the video starting at the 1 minute 36 second spot and ending about 30 seconds later. Its four minutes long but I really only want you to watch the 1 minute 36 spot and onward for about 30 seconds)





You and I know the second creature is part of our reality....but from the second creatures prespective the larger reality isn't observable so for all intents and purposes it doesn't exist. Now suppose this second creature evolves some intellect and realizes that maybe there is more to reality than meets the eye. It would be perfectly fair of that creature to classify its reality as a sub reality of a larger reality.

Novels, games are literally sub-realities of our reality if you define sub-reality similarly to a sub-set in mathematics. But such a definition doesn't imply that computer game or novel characters are actually self-aware beings or something like that. It only implies that aformentioned phenomenas belong entirely within our universe.

P.S.

Putting aside the definition of reality, you're basically trying to prove the following:
A sub-reality is a reality that belongs completely within other reality. that There exist realities that contain creators of sub-realities <=> for every reality and sub-reality there has to be a creator
Do you notice that while "<=" works "=>" doesn't follow? Hense the theorem is invalid.

Even in a more strict formulation as this:
A sub-reality is a reality that belongs completely within other reality. Every sub-reality has a creator <=> for every reality and sub-reality there has to be a creator
"=>" doesn't follow.

(November 30, 2014 at 3:52 pm)Heywood Wrote: You are conflating emergent complexity with life. Life is just one example of emergent complexity. The triple alpha process is another.

The triple alpha process is not an example of emergent complexity. You're just substituting 'emergent complexity' for life as the MacGuffin because it's less well understood than the use of life in the argument.

---

(November 30, 2014 at 4:22 pm)Heywood Wrote: I consider the possibility of a multiverse and the possibility of purposeful fine tuning. I lean toward one more than the other because in my experience realities cannot come into existence unless there is the involvement of an intellect.

You have experience of realities coming into existence? You're spinning word salads. You're referring to simulations which are intentionally created to be similar.

---

My previous thread on the appearance of design answers your entire argument. Your argument is a trivial result when properly understood. Either design is the product of intellect, which is the result of natural processes (evolution), and so is an example of sub-realities being created by a natural process, or it's not. Big whoop.

http://atheistforums.org/thread-24636.html

(November 30, 2014 at 4:22 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(November 30, 2014 at 3:32 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: Is it? It appears wholly fallacious from here.

Do you think causality is also a fallacy of composition?

Of course not. However, if we grant one of your premises, that certain sub-realities require intellect to create, and you conclude from this that the reality containing said sub-realities requires intellect to exist, then you most certainly have committed a fallacy of composition. In fact, said observed sub-realities are not realities at all, but more properly described as models or simulations.

How you came up with "you think causality is fallacious?" from that is beyond me.

(November 30, 2014 at 4:55 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(November 30, 2014 at 4:28 pm)Jenny A Wrote: No one has an experience of "realities" coming into existence. This is the only reality any of us has any experience with. And we haven't seen it come into existence. Novels, computer simulations, movies, etc are not really realities. Anyone playing a game is aware that any simulated reality is just a thought experiment played in this universe.

Jenny I have two 30 second videos I would like you to watch. This first one is a video of a creature which evolved in our reality.
[hide='Video of Spider Following Lazar']



[/hide]

This second one is a video of a creature which evolved in a reality intellects created.(sorry....I thought I could figure out how to post the video starting at the 1 minute 36 second spot and ending about 30 seconds later. Its four minutes long)

[hide='Video of Evolution of Creatures in a Computer Program']



[hide]
You and I know the second creature is part of our reality....but from the second creatures prespective the larger reality isn't observable so for all intents and purposes it doesn't exist. Now suppose this second creature evolves some intellect and realizes that maybe there is more to reality than meets the eye. It would be perfectly fair of that creature to classify its reality as a sub reality.

First of all and entirely off topic, the second video is a cool simulation of how evolution works.

However, we have not, so far created a sentient being through intellect. Thus we still haven't seen any reality created unequivocally by an intellect, or as would be fairer in the case of the simulation by many many intellects developing technology and understanding through many generations.

The first video reminds me more of Plato's cave thought experiment. That is to say the spider isn't in an sub reality, it is merely fooled by misinterpretations of it's senses. Judging from the way in which it appears to give up, it may even have gotten wise to its misinterpretation, though I doubt it thought, "oh it's a lazar."

(November 30, 2014 at 5:00 pm)Smaug Wrote: Putting aside the definition of reality, you're basically trying to prove the following:
A sub-reality is a reality that belongs completely within other reality. that There exist realities that contain creators of sub-realities <=> for every reality and sub-reality there has to be a creator
Do you notice that while "<=" works "=>" doesn't follow? Hense the theorem is invalid.

Even in a more strict formulation as this:
A sub-reality is a reality that belongs completely within other reality. Every sub-reality has a creator <=> for every reality and sub-reality there has to be a creator
"=>" doesn't follow.

I am not claiming there has to be a creator for every sub reality. If you think this then you clearly do not understand the argument I am making. I am claiming that since we observe sub realities coming into existence via the hand of intellect....and never observe sub realities coming into existence sans intellect....that fact gives strength to the conjecture that all sub realities require intellects to come into existence. I am making an inductive argument...not a deductive one.

Haywood's principal mistake is that he took upon himself to prove a general assumption and is clearly not doing well with it. Bear in mind that general assumptions are the hardest to prove even in seemingly simple abstract cases.

Quote:I am not claiming there has to be a creator for every sub reality. If you think this then you clearly do not understand the argument I am making. I am claiming that since we observe sub realities coming into existence via the hand of intellect....and never observe sub realities coming into existence sans intellect....that fact gives strength to the conjecture that all sub realities require intellects to come into existence. I am making an inductive argument...not a deductive one.

You've claimed earlier that our reality has to have a creator. Even with your 'phenomenological' hypothesis of sub-realities (which is build upon a false premise) it doesn't follow as you're never able to prove that our reality is a sub-reality and it exactly fits your 'phenomenological' criteria (which have to be presented alongside with your hypothesis).

(November 30, 2014 at 5:39 pm)Heywood Wrote: I am not claiming there has to be a creator for every sub reality. If you think this then you clearly do not understand the argument I am making. I am claiming that since we observe sub realities coming into existence via the hand of intellect....and never observe sub realities coming into existence sans intellect....that fact gives strength to the conjecture that all sub realities require intellects to come into existence. I am making an inductive argument...not a deductive one.

Chameleon-like animals create subrealities with the appearance of their environment without the use of intellect. You're making an induction from a sample size of 1 - humans. That's not an induction, that's a hasty generalization.

(November 30, 2014 at 5:23 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:

(November 30, 2014 at 4:22 pm)Heywood Wrote: Do you think causality is also a fallacy of composition?

Of course not. However, if we grant one of your premises, that certain sub-realities require intellect to create, and you conclude from this that the reality containing said sub-realities requires intellect to exist, then you most certainly have committed a fallacy of composition. In fact, said observed sub-realities are not realities at all, but more properly described as models or simulations.

How you came up with "you think causality is fallacious?" from that is beyond me.

Premise A: Realities can contain sub realities.
Premise B: We observe sub realities coming into existence.
Premise C: We always observe the hand of intellect participating in the creation of a sub reality.
Premise D: We never observe sub realities coming into existence without an intellect.
Conclusion: Our observations suggest that sub realities require the hand of intellect to come into existence.

Where is this the composition fallacy in the above argument? Is there a composition fallacy in this next argument?

Premise E: We always observe effects having causes.
Premise D: We never observe effects not having causes.
Conclusion: Our observations suggest that effects always have causes.

---

(November 30, 2014 at 5:45 pm)rasetsu Wrote:

(November 30, 2014 at 5:39 pm)Heywood Wrote: I am not claiming there has to be a creator for every sub reality. If you think this then you clearly do not understand the argument I am making. I am claiming that since we observe sub realities coming into existence via the hand of intellect....and never observe sub realities coming into existence sans intellect....that fact gives strength to the conjecture that all sub realities require intellects to come into existence. I am making an inductive argument...not a deductive one.

Chameleon-like animals create subrealities with the appearance of their environment without the use of intellect. You're making an induction from a sample size of 1 - humans. That's not an induction, that's a hasty generalization.

I'm not exactly sure what you are talking about here.....but chameleon like animals have intellect....just not the same magnitude of human intellect.

You will have to try harder.